Search

Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

HT Advice/Gouge Thread

Go to page

Land of the Milk and Honey.

Buddy who just showed up from the HTs to the squadron told me they got the 650.... couldn't believe it. So.... a training plane for basically all aircraft that do not nor will they ever have IFR GPS capability, that is equipped to fly LPV approaches, yet the Herc, which would benefit greatly from this product, is stuck with 20 year old stuff that is just shoved together and works some of the time? Nice.

While I'm not 100% certain, I'm under the impression that what they found was that one of the cheapest ways to upgrade the TH-57 fleet to be ADS-B compliant was to install a GTN-650. I've seen a few GA guys take a similar route with similar Garmin products (usually the 650 or the 900 I believe). It just so happens that we also now have LPV and VNAV with it as well. I don't think the going in mindset was "let's buy an upgraded GPS!!!" as opposed to "what's the most cost effective way that we can upgrade a 30+ year old aircraft fleet to be in compliance with FAA directives?"

Well-Known Member

While I'm not 100% certain, I'm under the impression that what they found was that one of the cheapest ways to upgrade the TH-57 fleet to be ADS-B compliant was to install a GTN-650. I've seen a few GA guys take a similar route with similar Garmin products (usually the 650 or the 900 I believe). It just so happens that we also now have LPV and VNAV with it as well. I don't think the going in mindset was "let's buy an upgraded GPS!!!" as opposed to "what's the most cost effective way that we can upgrade a 30+ year old aircraft fleet to be in compliance with FAA directives?"

To your point, I can't wrap my head around how the Navy bought a $10k box plus install to fix a $3-5k ADS-B problem. Plus, is the syllabus going to include teaching students about various GPS approaches (LNAV/+VNAV/LPV)? I just didn't figure the ADS-B requirement was such a huge stumbling block to the Navy, and certainly not if they chose the 650 to solve it.

Well-Known Member

I believe @DanMa1156 's answer about ADS-B compliance (if not the fiscal logic behind it) being the real answer. That said, I believe AOP 19 or 20 will have RNAV capability. And based on other threads here, I believe the -53 can shoot GPS approaches currently.

Former H-46 Driver

If you aren't now, you *will be* soon - just to operate in teh national airspace system. I read on a lot of threads that the technical capability in a lot of aircraft are there - but the some "certification" is necessary to actually start leveraging.

Land of the Milk and Honey.

To your point, I can't wrap my head around how the Navy bought a $10k box plus install to fix a $3-5k ADS-B problem. Plus, is the syllabus going to include teaching students about various GPS approaches (LNAV/+VNAV/LPV)? I just didn't figure the ADS-B requirement was such a huge stumbling block to the Navy, and certainly not if they chose the 650 to solve it.

I showed up to the HT's waaaay after the decision to procure it was made, but I doubt when buying in bulk like the HT's do, the Navy paid full price for it. Also, teaching a student "uh yeah, you can do LPV mins now) isn't particularly difficult. Ensuring they understand we have vertical guidance vice glideslope and getting them to understand the difference (thus making it a NPA) is maybe the most difficult part I've encountered thus far.

Well-Known Member

If you aren't now, you *will be* soon - just to operate in teh national airspace system. I read on a lot of threads that the technical capability in a lot of aircraft are there - but the some "certification" is necessary to actually start leveraging.

It's significantly more complicated than that, at least in the -60s. The software is nowhere near capable in it's current form. The waypoints are there, but that's it. And given that we're just now getting AOP 16 in 2018...it's going to be a bit.

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998

The VORs are getting decommissioned, one by one, with a much cheaper to maintain skeleton network to remain. I can't imagine the TACANs surviving any better in the next ten years. But you can always put "request radar vectors to destination" in your flight plan remarks and file direct with your non-IFR GPS fleet aircraft. That's technically legal...

Former H-46 Driver

The VORs are getting decommissioned, one by one, with a much cheaper to maintain skeleton network to remain. I can't imagine the TACANs surviving any better in the next ten years. But you can always put "request radar vectors to destination" in your flight plan remarks and file direct with your non-IFR GPS fleet aircraft. That's technically legal...

Well-Known Member

The VORs are getting decommissioned, one by one, with a much cheaper to maintain skeleton network to remain. I can't imagine the TACANs surviving any better in the next ten years. But you can always put "request radar vectors to destination" in your flight plan remarks and file direct with your non-IFR GPS fleet aircraft. That's technically legal...

Is that legal? I guess if your aircraft equipment is limited, perhaps, but I vaguely remember there being a rule about not filing a distance >200nm inside an ARTCC facility's airspace. I guess maybe not "illegal" per se, but specifically addressed to NOT do. I mean all the FAIPs in AETC did it because they didn't know any better and it always resulted in them waiting on deck with an amended clearanced to their "GPS direct" filed FP, but it's one way to go, I guess. If we're talking helicopters though... I don't think the 200nm will be a factor.

Well-Known Member

Is that legal? I guess if your aircraft equipment is limited, perhaps, but I vaguely remember there being a rule about not filing a distance >200nm inside an ARTCC facility's airspace. I guess maybe not "illegal" per se, but specifically addressed to NOT do. I mean all the FAIPs in AETC did it because they didn't know any better and it always resulted in them waiting on deck with an amended clearanced to their "GPS direct" filed FP, but it's one way to go, I guess. If we're talking helicopters though... I don't think the 200nm will be a factor.

Is The Bottle Ready?!

Is that legal? I guess if your aircraft equipment is limited, perhaps, but I vaguely remember there being a rule about not filing a distance >200nm inside an ARTCC facility's airspace. I guess maybe not "illegal" per se, but specifically addressed to NOT do. I mean all the FAIPs in AETC did it because they didn't know any better and it always resulted in them waiting on deck with an amended clearanced to their "GPS direct" filed FP, but it's one way to go, I guess. If we're talking helicopters though... I don't think the 200nm will be a factor.